* Uri Ariel, Mayor of Har-Shefi\'s hometown of Beit El, where her uncle MK Benny Elon also lives, said, \"The Beit El family stands by Margalit Har-Shefi at this difficult hour.\"
* MK Dalia Rabin-Pilosoph (Center), daughter of the late Prime Minister Rabin, said, \"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but the final outcome is positive.\"
* MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union) has already asked President Moshe Katzav to pardon Margalit Har-Shefi. Hendel said that she did not take part in the despicable murder, and that she was a victim of \"wild incitement by the extreme left, which had to have its effect on the judges.\"
* The Professors for a Strong Israel organization issued a statement against the ruling, saying it is yet \"another act that harms the public confidence in Israel\'s law enforcement system. It is particularly strange in view of the fact that for over five years, the same legal system has continuously delayed legal process against Avishai Raviv and his bosses in the GSS, who not only knew about Amir\'s intentions and did not report them, but also contributed significantly to the incitement that preceded the assassination. Any person for whom the principles of justice are dear to his heart must condemn the judicial process against Ms. Har-Shefi, who has already suffered for five years and paid a heavy personal price. Professors for a Strong Israel sorrowfully notes that the obvious identification of the Supreme Court with a specific political party harms its standing and the rule of law in Israel.\"
* Law Prof. Eliav Shochetman explained his opposition to both the verdict and the specific law under which Ms. Har-Shefi was convicted to Arutz-7 today:
\"Even if she heard all sorts of things from him [the assassin Yigal Amir], it doesn\'t mean that she knew of a plan to commit a crime. If a person knew that someone was thinking of committing a crime, but without a real plan to do so, this is not enough for a conviction... I haven\'t read today\'s ruling, but according to previous legal precedents, no one has ever been convicted based on what the Court thinks or suspects the person knew. The judges must be convinced that there is no doubt that she knew he would commit a crime - and in this case it is hard to assume that there was no doubt... This is a very bad precedent, for until now people have been convicted of not preventing a crime only in one of two cases: either the defendant admitted that he knew about the crime in advance - and in this case the defendant strenuously denies this; or the defendant was convicted of other crimes at the same time, such as belonging to a terrorist organization - where his membership also implies that he knew crimes were to be perpetrated...\"
When asked what he thought of the law criminalizing the lack of prevention of a crime, Prof. Shochetman said,
\"I agree with what former Chief Justice Chaim Cohen once said, that it is not a good law, that it is appropriate for dictatorial regimes, and that it encourages snitching and tattling. But, Cohen said, if it\'s the law, we must follow it. I would be happy if it would be removed from the law books.\"
Shochetman brought up another point:
\"The circumstances of the murder are unclear, because all indications are that GSS knew about Amir\'s plans and threats beforehand, and the Shamgar Commission determined that the GSS received information on this from Avishai Raviv. It is therefore clear to all that the GSS should have known what was going on - so now to come and throw the whole thing on the shoulders of a young girl, who had nothing more than ideological discussions with Amir, is very severe. The entire GSS involvement must be investigated by the police... It\'s true that Avishai Raviv is standing trial, but it\'s behind closed doors and no one knows what\'s going on. In addition, why aren\'t his handlers in the GSS being tried [for not doing anything to stop the murder]?\"
* MK Dalia Rabin-Pilosoph (Center), daughter of the late Prime Minister Rabin, said, \"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but the final outcome is positive.\"
* MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union) has already asked President Moshe Katzav to pardon Margalit Har-Shefi. Hendel said that she did not take part in the despicable murder, and that she was a victim of \"wild incitement by the extreme left, which had to have its effect on the judges.\"
* The Professors for a Strong Israel organization issued a statement against the ruling, saying it is yet \"another act that harms the public confidence in Israel\'s law enforcement system. It is particularly strange in view of the fact that for over five years, the same legal system has continuously delayed legal process against Avishai Raviv and his bosses in the GSS, who not only knew about Amir\'s intentions and did not report them, but also contributed significantly to the incitement that preceded the assassination. Any person for whom the principles of justice are dear to his heart must condemn the judicial process against Ms. Har-Shefi, who has already suffered for five years and paid a heavy personal price. Professors for a Strong Israel sorrowfully notes that the obvious identification of the Supreme Court with a specific political party harms its standing and the rule of law in Israel.\"
* Law Prof. Eliav Shochetman explained his opposition to both the verdict and the specific law under which Ms. Har-Shefi was convicted to Arutz-7 today:
\"Even if she heard all sorts of things from him [the assassin Yigal Amir], it doesn\'t mean that she knew of a plan to commit a crime. If a person knew that someone was thinking of committing a crime, but without a real plan to do so, this is not enough for a conviction... I haven\'t read today\'s ruling, but according to previous legal precedents, no one has ever been convicted based on what the Court thinks or suspects the person knew. The judges must be convinced that there is no doubt that she knew he would commit a crime - and in this case it is hard to assume that there was no doubt... This is a very bad precedent, for until now people have been convicted of not preventing a crime only in one of two cases: either the defendant admitted that he knew about the crime in advance - and in this case the defendant strenuously denies this; or the defendant was convicted of other crimes at the same time, such as belonging to a terrorist organization - where his membership also implies that he knew crimes were to be perpetrated...\"
When asked what he thought of the law criminalizing the lack of prevention of a crime, Prof. Shochetman said,
\"I agree with what former Chief Justice Chaim Cohen once said, that it is not a good law, that it is appropriate for dictatorial regimes, and that it encourages snitching and tattling. But, Cohen said, if it\'s the law, we must follow it. I would be happy if it would be removed from the law books.\"
Shochetman brought up another point:
\"The circumstances of the murder are unclear, because all indications are that GSS knew about Amir\'s plans and threats beforehand, and the Shamgar Commission determined that the GSS received information on this from Avishai Raviv. It is therefore clear to all that the GSS should have known what was going on - so now to come and throw the whole thing on the shoulders of a young girl, who had nothing more than ideological discussions with Amir, is very severe. The entire GSS involvement must be investigated by the police... It\'s true that Avishai Raviv is standing trial, but it\'s behind closed doors and no one knows what\'s going on. In addition, why aren\'t his handlers in the GSS being tried [for not doing anything to stop the murder]?\"